This particular topic goes to shit anywhere it is tried, even in real life. It is totally polarizing.

Some approach with science (material), philosophy (informational) and religion (metaphysical). These do not always talk to each other, although the middle one can.

dont worry there are too many atheists and those who dont get metaphysics in nrx for it to ever really be anything but secular in the near future.

My big beef is that the 3 approaches are not mutually exclusive and the major problem is people who try to argue philosophical statements without any consideration on to the prior assumptions they make in order to get that. I dont mind having civil conversation but all sides have to be willing to be civil or else you just get trolled.

We might as well have this one out once, call each other fags and then realize it's an impossible bridge. Some people see it; others do not.

For those who want to see it, meaning an invisible world within this one, I suggest Bruckner. It will take a few weeks of listening and familiarization before it becomes comprehensible.

its not his beliefs that make him a fag. Its him spending a significant amount of time literally talking shit with very little substance. If he gets all upset that someone calls him out on it than hes a pussy.

EDIT: the faggot from reddit comment from my second post in the thread is directly related to the tranny not to sponz.

The problem with these kind of discussions, which has already been identified, is that people do not understand the limitations of particular areas of knowledge and essentially make their argument from a particular set of subjective premises. This is accompanied by a modern tendency to be exceptionally unimaginative and literal in interpreting both traditional texts and empirical facts. The philosophical materialist seeks to reduce everything to empirical data which is assumed to be synonymous with truth while the "Christian" bases their argument on a rather biased reading of the Bible together with some pop theology.

Only objectivity can permit constructive discussion and objectivity transcends both empirical data (and matter) and religious dogma although its content (truth) can be expressed through both.

I would add that in my opinion religion, including Christianity, is essentially a framework which allows truth to be accessed according to the qualification of the seeker. It also contains a vast and complex network of social rules and considerations that allow it to form the foundation of a civilization. It is no coincidence that all successful human societies were founded on religion in one form or another, whereas our modern "civilization" which represents the most advanced form of decay ever witnessed is also the first to remove religion from a central role in its social infrastructure.

A lot of us are thinking religion wasn't removed but underwent a secular transformation. There is state dogma, state sanctioned social justice saints and public secular rituals for example. Heretics are persecuted with a vengeance. High priests of secular humanism issue decrees from the academic, executive, judicial and legislative temples.

A lot of us are thinking religion wasn't removed but underwent a secular transformation. There is state dogma, state sanctioned social justice saints and public secular rituals for example. Heretics are persecuted with a vengeance. High priests of secular humanism issue decrees from the academic, executive, judicial and legislative temples.

So the outward forms were retained while the content was replaced. It is incredible how members of the modern establishment are fundamentally incapable of seeing that their own way of thinking is based on a particular set of subjective premises. What is more this is the very accusation they use to undermine all traditional institutions and ways of thinking.

I dont even mind if he makes philosophical statements from a materialist stand point. Without rigor ideas are meaningless.

If serious statements on Christianity want to be brought up thats fine. I'll grant that American Protestantism really does deserve lots of the critique it gets. However it is the proto-leftist Christians that fill this puritan attitude far more than catholic or orthodox traditions. Sola Scriputre is also relatively recent as a major focus of the religion.

Jackel, I agree with vir that Christianity is more of a framework than a particular religion. Within that framework, the Puritans were the best religion of them all. This neoreactionary idea of blaming liberalism on the Puritans is just nonsense. The only fault of the Puritans was supporting democracy, but other than that they were excellent. They had good morals and a strong community.

It is true that the Protestant religious passion has been passed to the liberals. So what, passion can be either good or bad depending on what the passion is for. This forum here also contains people passionate about their ideas. What's the difference? The Catholics and Orthodox lack passion which means that creating a moral society will be challenging for them.

Sola Scriptura has been an issue forever. This is what the Pharisees and Sadducees disagreed on (Sadducees supporting sola scriptura) and this later continued with Rabbinic Jews verus Karaite Jews. This issue will always be around because the optimal is somewhere in the middle, between sola scriptura and centralized dictates.

I'll grant that American Protestantism really does deserve lots of the critique it gets. However it is the proto-leftist Christians that fill this puritan attitude far more than catholic or orthodox traditions. Sola Scriputre is also relatively recent as a major focus of the religion.

Yes, it is an important question... not just for political reasons. It is one of the great mysteries of life and should be addressed one way or another.

I dislike the liberalization of Christianity that occurred in Protestantism. The idea of "democratization," or even one of those grubby proles out there entrusted with reading the Bible and deriving "his own truth" from it, strikes me as the height of idiocy. People come to religion for truth, not to project on it. And as with democracy, they will screw it up if given the authority to make a personal interpretation, because there's no truth value in that -- it's pure preference, projection and pretense.

Then again, around here all the Catholics speak Spanish, I think Francis is a nutjob and wasn't too fond of JP II, am completely unimpressed with the Catholic handling of their pedophilia scandals and generally see Catholics beating the tin drum about the evils of abortion, the joy of open borders and the importance of aiding our third world friends. Then again, our Protestant friends love their mission trips.

If Christianity is to survive, I think it needs to junk some of the chaff from both. Specifically, this would be a great place to entirely dump any liberalizations and to find a better command structure than centralized. Further I think the doctrine needs to streamline. It's too superstitious compared to more technical religions from the east.

The Puritans were some of the so called liberal gene carriers. It follows that New England is heavily blue state with high tax/low employment Mass. pretty much an epicenter state. Job one for eugenics would be to weed that out maybe.